www.anthonysmith.me.ukThis man enjoys math (anag.)http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk
The first chapters of everything<p><a href="http://www.christianfocus.com/item/show/1639"><img alt="Alasdair Paine: The first chapters of everything" title="Alasdair Paine: The first chapters of everything" src="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/assets/paine-first-chapters.jpg" class="alignright" align="right" />This recent (2014) book on Genesis 1-4</a> by Alasdair Paine (of St Andrew the Great in Cambridge) is a joy to read. The emphasis is on how the chapters make sense of the world in which we live. Indeed, the book’s subtitle is, ‘How Genesis 1-4 explains our world’. Summing up the value of these chapters, Paine notes how they make sense of ‘the magnificence of the world we inhabit’, its orderliness, the ‘dominance of the world by the human race’, ‘the extraordinarily mixed nature of life in our world’, ‘hatred, and the power of sin to master us’, and much more (p. 179-181). The book grew out of a preaching ministry — and it shows. Issues beyond the concern of the text are kept in their proper place, and dealt with in a sensitive way, and the book is filled with vivid illustrations and pointed applications.</p>
<p>However, despite the excellent material in the book, and despite having the right approach to Genesis (‘Persistently asking the question “what is the message here?” is the correct way to handle the book,’ p. 8), I’m not sure Paine quite hits the target. The reason for this is the lack of attention to the <em>context</em>.</p>
<p>Genesis 1-4, as well as being the first chapters of everything, are also the first chapters of the Book of Genesis. And Genesis, like every book of the Bible, has an immediate context. It was not written for us as isolated human beings trying to make sense of the world around us. It was written for the covenant people of God — for the (physical and spiritual) descendants of Abraham. Assuming a (basically) Mosaic authorship, as Paine does, we can focus still more sharply on the primary audience, which must surely have been Israel in the wilderness.</p>
<p>And when we do that, the text suddenly opens up in a fresh way.</p>
<p>Genesis 1 can now be seen not only as teaching us about God the Creator, but as teaching us more about <em>our</em> God: the God who has just set us free by triumphing over the gods of Egypt, who has entered into a covenant with us, and who has promised to give us the victory over the people of Canaan. The emphasis on God’s word in chapter 1 can be traced through the rest of Genesis, with its emphasis on God’s word of promise. Will the people of Israel trust God’s promises as they enter the promised land? Will <em>we</em> trust God’s promises? Then, just as God finished his work of creation, so he will most certainly fulfil all that he has promised to do. And he will work out each step of his plan, so that someone like Joseph (who, incidentally, ended up having dominion over much of the earth) can look back and say that ‘God meant it for good’ (Gen. 50:20, ESV), clearly echoing the language of the creation week.</p>
<p>Genesis 2-3 come to life when we think about the Tabernacle (as Paine does, very briefly). Eden was a garden sanctuary, in which God was especially present. In the same way, Israel in the wilderness has become a mobile sanctuary, with God present in their midst. And just as Adam and Eve faced the choice of life or death, so Israel was about to face the choice between life and death as they entered the promised land: ‘I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live,’ (Dt. 30:19, ESV). Would they listen to the L<span style="font-variant:small-caps">ord</span>, or would they listen to the serpent, enticing them to serve other gods? And what about us?</p>
<p>I have found this to be a very fruitful way of approaching the first chapters of Genesis. Just as when we read a New Testament letter, we try to hear it first through the ears of the original recipients, and only then begin to apply it to ourselves, so it should be with Genesis. We shouldn’t bypass the Exodus and the wilderness wanderings in order to hear Genesis more directly. God speaks to us today through the word that he spoke to his people in the past. We need to keep them in mind if we want to hear what God is saying to us now.</p>
Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:27:09 +0000http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2015/02/01/the-first-chapters-of-everything/
http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2015/02/01/the-first-chapters-of-everything/On the Green Party's policies<p>A couple of people asked me what I made of the Telegraph’s recent article on Green Party policy, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/11356354/Drugs-brothels-al-Qaeda-and-the-Beyonce-tax-the-Green-Party-plan-for-Britain.html"><em>Drugs, brothels, al-Qaeda and the Beyonce tax: the Green Party plan for Britain</em></a>. So I thought I’d jot down a few notes for a (potentially) wider readership.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p><strong>The Green Party has some crazy, wacky, ludicrous or disturbing polices</strong>, and if you are willing to wade through 161,403 words, you will find them! The party’s policies have been built up over decades. The only way policy can be changed is by the party conference. This makes the policies very democratic, but also gives them a tendency to grow, and grow, and grow. Few people in the party spend much time reading the policies, and members are far more likely to propose additions to policy than deletions from it. Have a quick look now at <a href="http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/">policy.greenparty.org.uk</a>.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><strong>Only a small subset of the policies are important at any given time</strong>, and these policies may be found in manifestos and heard in media appearances. It’s much more important to pay attention to those.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><strong>The broad principles are more important than the individual policies</strong> and that’s what attracted me to the Green Party. Green politics, internationally, is built on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pillars_of_the_Green_Party">four pillars</a>: <em>ecology</em>, <em>social justice</em>, <em>grassroots democracy</em>, and <em>nonviolence</em>. Derek Wall’s book, <a href="http://newint.org/books/no-nonsense-guides/green-politics/"><em>The No-Nonsense Guide to Green Politics</em></a> is a good introduction to this: see my posts <a href="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2012/12/29/green-politics-holistic-politics/">here</a> and <a href="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2012/12/31/green-politics-policies-and-practice/">here</a>. If you like the sound of that, don’t be unduly put off by the minutiae.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><strong>A vote for the Green Party could influence negotiations in a hung parliament</strong> even if your vote doesn’t directly contribute to a Green MP being elected. The small number of MPs the party ends up with would be able to say they represent the views of a huge number of people around the country. So they might have a disproportionate amount of bargaining power — still not very much, though — but <em>only</em> in respect to the party’s most <em>prominent</em> and <em>realistic</em> policies. This might be on energy, welfare, benefits or scrapping Trident, depending on how willing the other parties are to make accommodations. There’s absolutely no risk that any of the party’s more idiosyncratic policies will get implemented.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><strong>Other parties don’t disclose their policies</strong> and either keep them secret or make them up as they go along. When I joined the Green Party I familiarised myself with the core principles underlying party policy and, for comparison, tried to find something similar on the websites of the other major parties. Could I find anything? No.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><strong>You can change Green Party policy for the better</strong>. Just join the party and go to the conference! That’s what I’ll be doing in a few weeks’ time. Or join some other party and get involved in that one. But I doubt there is another party in the country that is shaped so directly by its members as the Green Party is.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>(No, that wasn’t a listicle!)</p>
Fri, 23 Jan 2015 09:01:22 +0000http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2015/01/23/on-the-green-partys-policies/
http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2015/01/23/on-the-green-partys-policies/Christians in Politics: will you #ShowUp?<p>In politics, it has been said, decisions are made by those who show up.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.christiansinpolitics.org.uk/"><img alt="Christians in Politics" title="Christians in Politics" src="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/assets/christians-in-politics.png" class="alignright" align="right" />Christians in Politics</a> launched a new campaign today:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.christiansinpolitics.org.uk/showup/">The Show Up campaign</a> aims to encourage positive Christian engagement in the run up to, and beyond, the 2015 General Election.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The launch video is below, and puts it very clearly:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We have a choice as believers in the UK. Are we going to spend the next few years just commentating and complaining about the state of our country? Or are we going to follow the biblical precedent of people like Joseph, Esther and Daniel, who served in the midst of regimes that make present day politics look positively virtuous. Surely it’s time for Christians to <strong>Show Up</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What could <em>you</em> do, beyond just voting?</p>
<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9">
<iframe class="embed-responsive-item" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/rXLCcRaGx48" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</div>
Tue, 13 Jan 2015 21:46:53 +0000http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2015/01/13/christians-in-politics-will-you-showup/
http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2015/01/13/christians-in-politics-will-you-showup/Christian same-sex marriage?<p><a href="http://www.dltbooks.com/titles/1741-9780232530117-permanent-faithful-stable"><img alt="Jeffrey John: Permanent, Faithful, Stable" title="Jeffrey John: Permanent, Faithful, Stable" src="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/assets/john-pfs.jpg" class="alignright" align="right" /></a>I recently read one of the most prominent books of its kind: Jeffrey John’s <a href="http://www.dltbooks.com/titles/1741-9780232530117-permanent-faithful-stable"><em>Permanent, Faithful, Stable: Christian Same-sex Marriage</em></a>. It’s the first such book that I’ve read; I understand it might not be the best example, but it is certainly short.</p>
<p>Jeffrey John is Dean of St Albans, and made the headlines in 2003, when he didn’t become the Bishop of Reading, following a big fuss about his stance on same-sex relationships, not least his own. The book was first published in 1993, then again in 2000 and 2012. This most recent edition has a new preface and postscript, lamenting the lack of progress on the issue within the Church of England, and rejoicing in the developments in the UK, with civil partnerships introduced in 2005, and with same-sex marriage looming on the horizon at the time (see <a href="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2012/01/31/those-whom-the-state-has-joined-together/">here</a> and <a href="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2013/02/06/same-sex-marriage-anyone-for-a-punch/">here</a> for a couple of my posts on that particular development). You can get a clear impression of the hurt and sense of injustice that people in John’s position have experienced. Any pastoral response needs to take that into account.</p>
<p>The core of the book consists of three chapters: ‘Is it Scriptural?’, ‘Is it Moral?’, and ‘Is it Achievable?’. John argues that the biblical texts speaking against same-sex sexual activity are either against only <em>some</em> such activity, or are intended simply to make a sharp distinction between Jews and Gentiles. A couple of pages are devoted to the centurion and his servant, with the suggestion that ‘Any Jew … would almost certainly have assumed they were gay lovers’ (p. 14). On the moral question, he sees sex within marriage as ‘good in itself, quite apart from any possibility of childbirth’ (p. 26). Thus he sees no reason to consider same-sex relationships to be morally inferior. The achievability chapter tackles both the question of promiscuity and fidelity and whether it could conceivably find acceptance within the church.</p>
<p>I found John’s biblical exegesis strained at times. But rather than deal with that here, the thought occurred that, even supposing his interpretations are correct, his case still wouldn’t be settled. First, with one exception, John doesn’t make a positive case from any passage; he merely tries to deflect the negative case. The one exception is the centurion and his servant. John takes Jesus’ words and actions to at least hint at approval of their (alleged) relationship. I find this far from compelling. But, second, I don’t think I would make the case against same-sex relationships primarily on the basis of those few verses that address the matter directly. A broader perspective is needed.</p>
<p>What is completely missing in John’s approach is any sense of the significance of ‘male and female’. As NT Wright makes clear in the superb video below (prepared for <a href="http://humanum.it/en/">the recent Vatican conference on the topic</a>), the complementarity between man and woman is intimately entwined with a thread that runs unmistakeably through the whole Bible. The marriage relationship, between a man and a woman, is one of the clearest signposts we have, to point us towards ‘the fulfilment of God’s good purposes for creation: the coming together of all things in heaven and on earth in Christ’ (16:20).</p>
<p>I realise this leaves a thousand questions unanswered. Some other time, perhaps!</p>
<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9">
<iframe class="embed-responsive-item" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/AsB-JDsOTwE" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</div>
Fri, 09 Jan 2015 09:04:08 +0000http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2015/01/09/christian-same-sex-marriage/
http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2015/01/09/christian-same-sex-marriage/Election 2015: Christian comment from KLICE<p>The excellent <a href="http://klice.co.uk/">Kirby Laing Institute for Christian Ethics (KLICE)</a> has a <a href="http://klice.co.uk/index.php/resources/election2015">new page devoted to the 2015 (general) election</a>.</p>
<p>You can read all about it in their recent <em>KLICE Comment</em>: <a href="http://tyndalehouse.createsend.com/t/ViewEmail/r/92E079557F585A102540EF23F30FEDED">Beyond Pantomime Politics: KLICE pauses for thought before May 2015</a>.</p>
<p>Here’s the introduction from the page itself:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>KLICE is commissioning a range of thought-provoking election pieces between January and April 2015. These will provide serious theological reflections for readers as they prepare to engage with the election issues and reflect on how to vote. Our major offering is a special series of eight <em>Ethics in Brief</em> on the main British political parties. These won’t advise you how to vote but may help to think more critically about your political allegiance.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Make sure you <a href="http://klice.co.uk/index.php/contact#klicenews">sign up for <em>KLICE Comment</em></a> for email updates.</p>
Mon, 05 Jan 2015 11:26:23 +0000http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2015/01/05/election-2015-christian-comment-from-klice/
http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2015/01/05/election-2015-christian-comment-from-klice/Steel Angels: the personal qualities of a priest<p><a href="http://www.spckpublishing.co.uk/shop/steel-angels/"><img alt="Magdalen Smith: Steel Angels" title="Magdalen Smith: Steel Angels" src="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/assets/smith-steel-angels.jpg" class="alignright" align="right" /></a>The Church of England puts people forward for ordination based on nine criteria. Those criteria form the basis for <a href="http://www.spckpublishing.co.uk/shop/steel-angels/">this 2014 book</a> by Magdalen Smith, who is the <a href="http://www.chester.anglican.org/news.asp?Page=705">new Diocesan Director of Ordinands (DDO) for the Diocese of Chester</a>.</p>
<p>Such a book could potentially be extremely dull. It could end up reading like an interminably long ‘person specification’, with essential and desirable characteristics of the successful candidate sprawled out for page after page. It could be like <a href="https://www.churchofengland.org/media/56413/Summary%20of%20Criteria.pdf">this</a> or <a href="https://www.churchofengland.org/media/1274926/criteria%20document%20-%20web.pdf">this</a>, but only longer.</p>
<p>Mercifully, that is not the approach of this book. Rather than stating what the criteria <em>are</em>, Smith instead shows us what they <em>look like</em>. Vivid images, such as ‘steel angels’ (a reference to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_of_the_North">The Angel of the North</a>) are combined with real-life anecdotes to give us an attractive portrait of the kind of person the criteria are intended to select. As such, I found the book had the effect of opening up possibilities and stimulating my imagination, rather than restricting and narrowing, as dry criteria can easily do. It makes me want to pursue ordination, rather than just giving me a huge list of reasons why I might not be suitable.</p>
<p>The book has the fairly standard parish priest in mind; it might not be so relevant for people serving or seeking to serve in less typical contexts.</p>
Sun, 04 Jan 2015 16:35:01 +0000http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2015/01/04/steel-angels-the-personal-qualities-of-a-priest/
http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2015/01/04/steel-angels-the-personal-qualities-of-a-priest/On feeling called to be ordained<p><a href="http://www.spckpublishing.co.uk/shop/called-or-collared/"><img alt="Francis Dewar: Called or Collared?" title="Francis Dewar: Called or Collared?" src="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/assets/dewar-called-collared.jpg" class="alignright" align="right" /></a>The most helpful parts of Francis Dewar’s book <a href="http://www.spckpublishing.co.uk/shop/called-or-collared/"><em>Called or Collared?</em></a> are those dealing with the idea that you must believe that you are ‘inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost’ in order to be ordained. (These words, from the Book of Common Prayer, have been removed in more recent ordination services, I’m pleased to note.)</p>
<p>This requirement, Dewar explains, ‘is relatively recent in the history of the Church’, not appearing ‘in church ordinals before the sixteenth century’ (p. 9). He quotes H. L. Goudge, who described it in 1938 as ‘nothing less than a disaster’:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It has probably lost to the ministry hundreds of men who might have made admirable clergy; and it tends to cause painful searchings of heart in times of depression to many rightly ordained (p. 11).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Instead, Dewar emphasises the role of the church in the process of ordination:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Remember, you do not choose yourself for the ordained ministry. Nor does it depend on your personal feelings about it. ‘You did not choose me: I chose you.’ It is Christ in his Body, the Church, who chooses you. Rest in that assurance, and know that if you are chosen, he will be with you in your heart and beside you in those who are, please God, pastors to you (p. 116).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What of the rest of the book? This kind of thing:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Blessed are those who follow the deepest law of their God-given nature (p. 89).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Most of the book is not far from saying, ‘God calls you to be true to yourself’. Now, there is undoubtedly something to be affirmed in our culture’s longing for individual authenticity. But to make that the heart of Christian spirituality, as Dewar appears to, strikes me as somewhat, well, syncretic.</p>
Sat, 03 Jan 2015 14:56:45 +0000http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2015/01/03/on-feeling-called-to-be-ordained/
http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2015/01/03/on-feeling-called-to-be-ordained/Ministry in Three Dimensions<p><a href="http://www.darton-longman-todd.co.uk/titles/1532-9780232527438-ministry-in-three-dimensions"><img alt="Steven Croft: Ministry in Three Dimensions" title="Steven Croft: Ministry in Three Dimensions" src="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/assets/croft-three-dimensions.jpg" class="alignright" align="right" /></a>I’m writing this from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Belt_(Netherlands)">the Bible Belt of the Netherlands</a>: a strip running from the south west towards the east of the country, in which there are many conservative Protestant Christians. As a result of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillarisation">pillarisation</a> of Dutch society, for well over a century, there has been a whole ‘pillar’ of society shaped by Protestant or Reformed Christian thinking. Many or most Christians send their children to Christian schools, read Christian newspapers, listen to Christian radio stations, watch Christian TV stations (or don’t watch TV at all), and vote for Christian political parties. This has allowed the church to remain strong, even in an increasingly non-Christian society, and has allowed it to continue to operate largely in what Steven Croft refers to as ‘inherited mode’ in his book, <a href="http://www.darton-longman-todd.co.uk/titles/1532-9780232527438-ministry-in-three-dimensions"><em>Ministry in Three Dimensions: Ordination and Leadership in the Local Church</em></a>.</p>
<p>Steven Croft was Warden of Cranmer Hall in Durham when he wrote the first edition of the book (1999). The second edition (2008) was written while he was Archbishops’ Missioner and Team Leader of Fresh Expressions. Since 2009 he has been the Bishop of Sheffield.</p>
<p>The ‘inherited mode’ he refers to is a legacy of Christendom. Church congregations are sustainable and largely self-perpetuating. Children are born into the church, nurtured in the faith, and remain in the church into adulthood. In the Dutch Bible Belt, or in certain towns and villages in England, the churches are large and exist comfortably as part of an existing community, in which people encounter one another outside of the church context in their day-to-day lives, and in which church involvement is an accepted part of many people’s lives. Or in many smaller, conservative churches in England, the church family forms a closely-knit alternative society to the world around, and is largely self-perpetuating in the same way. In either of these cases, the pastor or vicar can focus almost exclusively on what Croft calls the ‘presbyteral’ dimension of ministry, which is centred around the ministry of the word and sacrament.</p>
<p>However, in many churches, and perhaps most Church of England churches, this kind of ministry has not been sufficient. (Nor is it likely to be sufficient in many others in the years to come, except in certain ‘magnet’ churches in prominent cities.) The faithful have been growing old and dying, and the younger generations have not replaced them, either because they have fallen away, moved away, or not been born in the first place. Some churches have simply been shrinking and closing. Others have sought to reshape ordained ministry as ‘leadership’, drawing on secular models of management. Neither of those approaches is ideal, for obvious reasons.</p>
<p>Into this context, Croft seeks to draw on the rich biblical material on ministry and leadership. In particular, he seeks to draw on two often-neglected dimensions of ministry: <em>diakonia</em> (service) and <em>episcope</em> (oversight).</p>
<p>Many will be familiar with the historic threefold ordering of ordained ministry into deacons, presbyters (elders, <a href="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/02/24/when-is-a-priest-not-a-priest/">priests</a>) and bishops. Croft is by no means opposed to this (and sees hints of its emergence even in the New Testament), but his purpose is to see these primarily as <em>dimensions</em> of <em>all</em> ordained ministry, with the different orders reflecting a different <em>emphasis</em>. So, for example, the ministry of bishops will have an emphasis on <em>episcope</em>, but will nonetheless be shaped by <em>diakonia</em>, and have a strong presbyteral dimension. This reflects the New Testament usage, perhaps most strikingly in Acts 20, in which Paul speaks to the elders in Ephesus, emphasising the importance of both service (<em>diakonia</em>) and exercising oversight (<em>episcope</em>).</p>
<p>The book deals with each of these dimensions in turn, first <em>diakonia</em>, then the presbyteral dimension, then <em>episcope</em>. In each case, the biblical material is examined, followed by the Christian tradition, and then many practical lessons are drawn for contemporary ministry, primarily for those serving in a local church context. All of this is extraordinarily helpful. However, the final chapter, added for the second edition, hints at how the book might have taken a different shape, had a rewrite of the book been possible.</p>
<p>On <em>episcope</em>, in this final chapter, Croft now places the emphasis on the ordained ministers watching over themselves (‘Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock’, Acts 20:28). Other elements of <em>episcope</em> include enabling the ministry of others, and giving vision and unity to a church while helping it to navigate change. For this essential dimension of ministry, ‘There is much that the Church can learn from good practice developed over many years in the commercial world or in the public sector’ (p. 27). However, this wisdom should be appropriated without turning ordained ministry into a form of ‘leadership’ modelled on the surrounding culture.</p>
<p>In particular, and in contrast to models of leadership and management, all ordained ministry should retain the dimension of <em>diakonia</em>: Christian service. This is ‘the most important of the three dimensions if ministry and leadership are to be truly Christian and Christ-like’ (p. 45). This will include simple, hidden, practical acts of service, service to the community, competent and careful administration, listening to others, humility and integrity.</p>
<p>The final chapter of the book takes <em>diakonia</em> in an interesting direction. Croft draws on the work of John Collins, who ‘argues that the root meaning of [<em>diakonia</em>] in the New Testament is actually better understood not only as loving service but also mission or agency. A <em>diakonos</em> is primarily someone who is sent on behalf of someone else’ (p. 202). Croft links this closely with the ‘Fresh Expressions’ movement of the past decade or so, which is not so much about sustaining existing communities, as about ‘forming new communities through contextual mission’ (p. 201). Someone whose ministry is shaped by <em>diakonia</em> will be a pioneer, seeking to take the gospel beyond the world of the existing congregations and into new ground.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Like the church reflected in Ephesians 4, we need our pastors and teachers (the focus of presbyteral ministry) but also our evangelists (the focus of diaconal ministry) (p. 208).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The book’s final paragraph provides a good summary:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Like the apostle [Paul in Ephesus], we too are called to these different ministries within one body of Christ: to sustain existing communities through the ministries of word and sacrament; to pioneer new communities to connect with those who are right outside the churches and to exercise oversight over the whole church, connecting the different parts together and enabling the church to be built up and God’s kingdom extended. The calling of all of the ordained is to ministry in three dimensions (p. 210).</p>
</blockquote>
Thu, 01 Jan 2015 18:44:47 +0000http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2015/01/01/ministry-in-three-dimensions/
http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2015/01/01/ministry-in-three-dimensions/Do you feel called by God?<p><a href="http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/do-you-feel-called-by-god"><img alt="Michael Bennett: Do you feel called by God?" title="Michael Bennett: Do you feel called by God?" src="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/assets/bennett-called.jpg" class="alignright" align="right" /></a>You don’t need to!</p>
<p>That’s the main point of <a href="http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/do-you-feel-called-by-god">Michael Bennett’s 2012 book, <em>Do you feel called by God?</em></a> (Matthias Media). From the back cover:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When Michael Bennett took the first steps towards full-time, ordained Christian ministry, he dreaded being asked whether he ‘felt called’. Because in all honesty, he didn’t.</p>
<p>Many years later, and after extensive biblical research, he came to the conclusion that the common idea of needing to feel a subjective call from God before entering the ministry is misguided and unbiblical.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It’s a readable, short and engaging book. The substantial part is an examination of the biblical material. He notes that, in the Old and New Testaments, people do indeed find themselves being called by God, such as Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Mary, the Twelve Apostles, Paul and Jesus himself. But the call these people receive may be described as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The word of God comes directly and personally to one of God’s people, specifically directing that individual to assume a defined role or task as God’s chosen leader, representative or spokesperson (pp. 37, 48).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As such, this kind of ‘call’ is clear, undeniable, and external or objective. It hardly needs to be said that elders (presbyters) in the New Testament are not appointed on the basis that they have received a ‘call’ of this nature. Nor is their appointment described using the language of ‘call’. And, crucially, nowhere in Scripture, Old or New Testament, is there any concept of <em>feeling</em> called.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>You do not find Isaiah, for instance, saying later that he experienced an inward spiritual impression that he should take up the prophetic role (p. 40).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So if a deep, subjective, inner sense of call is not the decisive factor, then what are the qualifications that should be required of an ordained minister?</p>
<p>The helpful answer comes under two headings:</p>
<ol>
<li>He must be rightly motivated for ministry (p. 122), and</li>
<li>He must be rightly tested for ministry (p. 125).</li>
</ol>
<p>The less helpful answer verges on denying that there is such a thing as ordained ministry.</p>
<p>After pointing out that all Christians are called into ministry (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eph4:11-13&amp;version=AKJV;NIVUK">compare the different translations of Ephesians 4:11-13</a>), Bennett seeks to find appropriate words to describe the kind of ministry done by pastors. It isn’t ‘full-time’ ministry, ‘as all believers are in “full-time” ministry from the moment of conversion’ (p. 115). After some struggle, the best way he can find to describe this kind of ministry is ‘career ministry’ (p. 115).</p>
<blockquote>
<p>By ‘career minister’, then, we mean a person who sets aside normal means of secular employment for the sake of being more fully devoted to gospel work, and who usually is supported financially in this work by other believers (p. 116).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I’m not sure this is entirely satisfactory. Admittedly, it is a small book, and this isn’t a major part of it, so I shouldn’t dwell on this. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood? But I do think some comments are in order. First, ‘career ministry’ unhelpfully excludes those ‘amateurs’ and ‘part-timers’ who have a secular career but labour away at pastoral ministry in their free time. (The Apostle Paul springs to mind: see 2 Corinthians.) Second, it makes no distinction between those who are legitimately authorised for their ‘career ministry’ by a church and those who are not. There are plenty of self-appointed charlatans who exploit the generosity of other believers in order to support their ‘career ministries’. And, third, it does seem that pastors (elders, presbyters) in the New Testament are nouns as well as verbs. For comparison, Jane believes that God wants her to spend today teaching, not only because she is good at teaching, but because she <em>is</em> a teacher. Jim believes that God wants him to spend today practising nursing, not only because he is good at nursing, but because he <em>is</em> a nurse. In the same way, John believes that God wants him to spend today exercising pastoral ministry, not only because he is good at doing that kind of thing, but because he <em>is</em> a pastor. There is a sense in which someone is objectively appointed to pastoral ministry, beyond simply being resourced to do the work.</p>
<p>So what should you say if asked, <a href="https://www.churchofengland.org/media/56413/Summary%20of%20Criteria.pdf">for example</a>, ‘to articulate a sense of vocation to the ordained ministry’? I suppose you could simply speak about why you want to be an ordained minister. Why does the prospect excite you? There is (or should be) no need to gaze deep into your navel, searching for some illusive inner sense of ‘feeling called’.</p>
Tue, 30 Dec 2014 10:45:23 +0000http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/12/30/do-you-feel-called-by-god/
http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/12/30/do-you-feel-called-by-god/God with us (in the lab)<p>There’s a post of mine on the <a href="http://faithinscholarship.org.uk/">Faith in Scholarship blog</a> this morning. It begins as follows…</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It’s hard to predict how I will feel at the end of the Christmas break. Will I be refreshed and eager to get back to work? Or will the thought fill me with dread? Or both?</p>
<p>It can be especially difficult when your day-to-day work is somewhat mind numbing. Every PhD has these phases. (If yours doesn’t, I want to know your secret!) How can you go from pondering the birth of Jesus Christ one week, to spend the next week wrestling with your data, poring over arcane ancient texts, fighting with test tubes, dredging through reams of articles, or debugging your spaghetti-like code?</p>
<p>It all depends on how we approach Christmas. …</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://faithinscholarship.org.uk/god-with-us-in-the-lab/">Read more…</a></p>
Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:14:07 +0000http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/12/29/god-with-us-in-the-lab/
http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/12/29/god-with-us-in-the-lab/On women bishops<p>This week (in case you missed it) the <a href="https://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2014/12/the-revd-libby-lane-announced-as-bishop-of-stockport.aspx">Church of England announced its first ever female bishop: Libby Lane, to serve as the (suffragan) Bishop of Stockport</a>, in my own diocese, the Diocese of Chester.</p>
<p>How are we to respond to this?</p>
<p>On a personal level, we should certainly pray for Libby Lane, that her ministry as Bishop of Stockport will be fruitful, and that God will use her to build up his church.</p>
<p>But we have to face the question of whether it is right for the Church of England to have women bishops at all.</p>
<p>I’m not sure that it is. And by ‘not sure’, I mean precisely that: not sure! On the one hand, there do seem to be significant differences between men and women, and those differences do seem to be reflected in how God’s people have been governed, for example, with male priests in the Old Testament, with the twelve apostles all being men, and with (it seems) male elders being appointed and given a specific teaching ministry in the New Testament church. (Can all this be explained purely in terms of the cultural context?) But, on the other hand, women do seem to be given a much more prominent role in the New Testament church, and there are hints of women being among the apostles, serving as deacons, and being recognized as elders (or eldresses, at least).</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, some articles I am pondering at the moment are:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://bible.org/seriespage/what-does-it-mean-not-teach-or-have-authority-over-men-1-timothy-211-15">Douglas Moo on 1 Timothy 2</a></li>
<li><a href="https://alastairadversaria.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/why-a-masculine-priesthood-is-essential/">Alastair Roberts on a masculine priesthood</a> and on <a href="https://alastairadversaria.wordpress.com/2014/09/01/a-biblical-gender-essentialism/">gender essentialism</a></li>
<li><a href="http://willgwitt.org/theology/concerning-womens-ordination-speaking-and-teaching/">William G Witt on 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2</a> as part of a series on <a href="http://willgwitt.org/category/theology/womens-ordination/">women’s ordination</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.theologymatters.com/JanFeb001.PDF">Kenneth Bailey on women in the New Testament</a> </li>
</ul>
<p>However, despite my uncertainty on the issue, there is one thing I am convinced about: that that Church of England ought to be broad enough to embrace that huge constituency of the worldwide church that believes either that women <em>cannot</em> or <em>should not</em> be ordained as presbyters or consecrated as bishops.</p>
<p>First, there are those who believe that women <em>cannot</em> be ordained. Can they remain in the Church of England?</p>
<p>Forward in Faith, as <a href="http://www.forwardinfaith.com/WBProvisions.php?id=217">part</a> of <a href="http://www.forwardinfaith.com/WBProvisions.php?id=213">a commentary on the Church of England’s five guiding principles on the issue of women bishops</a>, make an interesting distinction between the <em>office</em> of bishop and the <em>order</em> of bishop:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If the Rector of Barchester is a woman, we don’t say that the office of rector is vacant. She is the true and lawful holder of that office. She is the rector, but we cannot say that she is a priest. There is in in fact much precedent for church offices that were originally held by clergy being held by people who are not priests: there have been lay rectors — and, in cathedrals, lay canons and lay vicars.</p>
<p>Similarly, if the Bishop of Barchester is female, she will be the true and lawful holder of the office of diocesan bishop. We cannot say that she is a bishop in the sacramental sense (order), but as ‘holder of the office of diocesan bishop’ she will be a bishop in the other sense (office).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Second, there are those who believe that women <em>should not</em> be ordained. Can they remain in the Church of England?</p>
<p>In this case, it ought to be possible to say that, even though a certain woman <em>is</em> your bishop, she <em>shouldn’t be</em> your bishop. This is not dissimilar to having a male heretic as your bishop: he is your bishop, but he shouldn’t be. And churches have muddled through in those cases where they have found themselves with a bishop who shouldn’t be a bishop on the grounds of his theology or teaching. Shouldn’t it be similarly possible to muddle through if you believe your bishop shouldn’t be a bishop on the grounds of her being a woman?</p>
<p>The fourth of the five guiding principles mentioned above reads as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Since those within the Church of England who, on grounds of theological conviction, are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests continue to be within the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England remains committed to enabling them to flourish within its life and structures.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I sincerely hope that this will prove to be the case. I would love to see the Church of England being a church in which all who sincerely love the Lord Jesus can continue to find a home.</p>
Sun, 21 Dec 2014 20:53:39 +0000http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/12/21/on-women-bishops/
http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/12/21/on-women-bishops/Theological reflection: a theological reflection<p><strong>1. Experience</strong></p>
<p>I wrote a <a href="http://www.davidheywood.org/RCC/Y1%20TR/documents/Green%20handout.pdf">theological reflection</a>. You are reading it.</p>
<p><strong>2. Exploration</strong></p>
<p>This seems so simple!</p>
<p><strong>3. Reflection</strong></p>
<p>Are there any theological reflections in Scripture?</p>
<ul>
<li>Psalm 73 (NIV).
<ul>
<li><strong>Experience</strong>: “I envied the arrogant” (1-3).</li>
<li><strong>Exploration</strong>: “They have no struggles” (4-15).</li>
<li><strong>Reflection</strong>: “I entered the sanctuary of God; then I understood their final destiny” (16-20).</li>
<li><strong>Response</strong>: “I have made the Sovereign L<span style="font-variant:small-caps">ord</span> my refuge; I will tell of all your deeds” (21-28).</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>1 Samuel 28 (NIV).
<ul>
<li><strong>Experience</strong> and <strong>exploration</strong>: “When Saul saw the Philistine army, he was afraid” (3-5).</li>
<li><strong>Reflection</strong>: “He enquired of the L<span style="font-variant:small-caps">ord</span>, but the L<span style="font-variant:small-caps">ord</span> did not answer him” (6).</li>
<li><strong>Response</strong>: “Saul then said to his attendants, ‘Find me a woman who is a medium, so that I may go and enquire of her.’” (7).</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p>It seems that the latter is an example of a <em>bad</em> theological reflection!</p>
<p><strong>4. Response</strong></p>
<p>I like theological reflection. It is better than either (1) experience without reflection, or (2) reflection disconnected from experience. But there is such a thing as bad theological reflection. It isn’t a magic bullet.</p>
Tue, 16 Dec 2014 13:28:06 +0000http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/12/16/theological-reflection-a-theological-reflection/
http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/12/16/theological-reflection-a-theological-reflection/Models of the Church<p>We live in an age of ecclesiastical chaos. Never before have so many wildly different kinds of churches existed side by side in the same towns and cities. And while these churches are invariably friendly towards each other, only occasionally do they think of each other as being basically on the same page. On the contrary, they generally view each other with a bemused sense of bafflement, wondering how on earth what <em>they</em> do week by week can in any sense be thought of as being ‘Church’.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.imagecatholicbooks.com/book/43525/models-of-the-church/"><img alt="Avery Dulles: Models of the Church" title="Avery Dulles: Models of the Church" src="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/assets/dulles-models.jpg" class="alignright" align="right" /></a> Into this kind of situation a book such as <a href="http://www.imagecatholicbooks.com/book/43525/models-of-the-church/"><em>Models of the Church</em> by Avery Dulles</a> (1918-2008) is extremely helpful. He sees the Church as ultimately being a mystery, that is, a reality ‘of which we cannot speak directly’ (p. 2). As such, rather than searching for tight definitions, we have to employ images, or analogies, or types, or models. Viewed in this way, our radically different understandings of the Church might each contain some elements of truth, and might be able to complement and sharpen each other, rather than being in direct opposition.</p>
<p>Dulles was an American Cardinal, theologian and Jesuit. His book was first published in 1974, then extended in 1986, and then published again in 2001, with a new appendix. It is largely written in the context of Vatican II (1962-5), but, as an ignorant Protestant, I still found it fascinating and illuminating, both for my own understanding of the Church, as well as being an enlightening glimpse into Roman Catholic thinking.</p>
<p>The book is built around five models of the Church (with a sixth introduced in the final chapter of the 1986 edition). I’ll deal with them in a different order, to suit a more Protestant audience.</p>
<p>First, then, we have Dulles’ fourth model, that of <strong>the Church as herald</strong>, which ‘sees the task of the Church primarily in terms of proclamation’ (p. 69). Following Barth,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Church is … constituted by the word being proclaimed and faithfully heard. The Church is the congregation that is gathered together by the word (pp. 69f.).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This model has many strengths, but also several weaknesses. For example, it fails to reflect the biblical view of the Church as ‘a real, visible community existing continuously in world history’ (pp. 77f.). It also ‘focuses too exclusively on witness to the neglect of action’ and is ‘too pessimistic or quietistic with regard to the possibilities of human effort to establish a better human society in this life, and the duty of Christians to take part in this common effort’ (p. 79).</p>
<p>Perhaps we need to draw on Dulles’ fifth model, that of <strong>the Church as servant</strong>? While this model, in isolation, could be very weak, it does contribute some helpful insights. Evaluating the models in connection with eschatology, Dulles writes,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>From the fifth model, finally, I would accept the thesis that the Church has the task of introducing the values of the Kingdom into the whole of human society, and thus of preparing the world, insofar as human effort can, for the final transformation when God will establish the new heavens and the new earth (p. 113).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The word-centred kind of Church with which I am most familiar would typically stress that the proclaimed word should give rise to a loving community, which fits closely with Dulles’ second model, that of <strong>the Church as mystical communion</strong>. This reflects the biblical images of the Church as the People of God, or as the Body of Christ, both of which ‘emphasize the immediate relationship of all believers to the Holy Spirit, who directs the whole Church’ (p. 45).</p>
<p>But again, this mystical, invisible understanding of the Church fails to do justice to its visible elements, such as its sacraments and structures of leadership.</p>
<p>Dulles’ first model of <strong>the Church as institution</strong>, sounds very much like the Roman Catholic model, from the perspective of an outsider. But, interestingly, it ‘has been displaced from the center of Catholic theology since about 1940’ (p. 21), and faces sharp criticism in the book. But it does have some strengths.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is imperative for the members of the Church to be able to find the continued presence of Christ in the Church as a visible society. The institutional model has the great merit of giving due emphasis to the Church’s ministry of perpetuating the work of Christ as Teacher, Savior, and Ruler (p. 196).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The third model, <strong>the Church as sacrament</strong>, attempts to use sacramental theology to combine the visible and invisible aspects of the Church, highlighted by the first and second models, respectively. The Church, however imperfectly, is an effective sign of Christ’s presence.</p>
<p>Dulles initially singled out the sacramental model as the most promising starting-point for building a well-rounded view of the Church. But in the second edition he introduced a sixth model, that of <strong>the Church as community of disciples</strong>. This image relates well to the other five: the visible community of disciples was instituted by Christ, exists as a community, symbolises and embodies Christ, proclaims the gospel, and continues his work in the world.</p>
<p>Dulles book ‘[does] not constitute a rounded systematic ecclesiology’ (p. 195). But the vivid images developed in the book perhaps provide a constructive way of embarking on that task. They are certainly very useful as we seek to understand and relate to other parts of the Body of Christ.</p>
Tue, 11 Nov 2014 21:14:07 +0000http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/11/11/models-of-the-church/
http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/11/11/models-of-the-church/The Provocative Church<p><a href="http://www.spckpublishing.co.uk/shop/the-provocative-church/"><img alt="Graham Tomlin: The Provocative Church" title="Graham Tomlin: The Provocative Church" src="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/assets/provocative-church.jpg" class="alignright" align="right" /></a>A quick post, to remind you that I’m still here, and to draw your attention to an excellent little book about evangelism and the Church, <a href="http://www.spckpublishing.co.uk/shop/the-provocative-church/"><em>The Provocative Church</em></a>, by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Tomlin">Graham Tomlin</a>. I’m amazed that I haven’t had this book thrust at me constantly over the past 12 years since it was first published, as it really is a gem. It’s now in its fourth edition (2014), though I’ve just read the second edition (2004).</p>
<p>Anyway, enough from me. Here’s what it says on the back cover:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Sometimes Christians assume that people ‘out there’ are eager to listen to what the Church has to offer. But why should those we try to evangelize want to hear the gospel? Surely people will only be intrigued by Christian life and community when they see something provocative or attractive. Then they will want to know what’s going on.</p>
<p><em>The Provocative Church</em> offers a liberating understanding of evangelism as a corporate activity, in which all the gifts needed to enact the life of the kingdom – to stir people into asking, ‘What does this mean?’ – are spread throughout the whole Church. It encourages the development of a theology of conversion that sees beyond ‘becoming a Christian’ to bring each individual life increasingly under the rule of God.</p>
</blockquote>
Sat, 25 Oct 2014 09:14:20 +0100http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/10/25/the-provocative-church/
http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/10/25/the-provocative-church/The Lost World of Genesis One<p><a href="https://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=3704"><img alt="John Walton: The Lost World of Genesis One" title="John Walton: The Lost World of Genesis One" src="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/assets/walton-lost-world.jpg" class="alignright" align="right" /></a>Continuing on the theme of creation/evolution-related books from around five years ago (<a href="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/07/15/creation-or-evolution-do-we-have-to-keep-getting-nowhere/">1</a>, <a href="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/07/28/debating-darwin/">2</a>), we now move across the pond to Wheaton College, Illinois, and to <a href="http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Faculty/W/John-Walton">John Walton</a> and his very influential book, <a href="https://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=3704"><em>The Lost World of Genesis One</em></a> (2009).</p>
<p>Walton is professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College. His main area of interest is the ancient Near East, and in how we should understand the Book of Genesis in that context. His books include a fairly substantial commentary on Genesis (2001), a more scholarly book from 2011 on the same topic as <em>The Lost World of Genesis One</em> (<em>Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology</em>), and <em>The Lost World of Scripture</em> (2013). I really should have read those books before writing this review. But I haven’t. Read on at your own risk!</p>
<p>The first thing to note about the book is that it confines its attention almost exclusively to Genesis 1 (well, 1:1-2:3). It’s important to remember that this isn’t the only relevant part of the Bible when thinking about creation and evolution. In fact, as we saw in <a href="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/07/28/debating-darwin/">the previous book</a>, it is possible to build a strong case for a young-age creation position without even looking at Genesis 1, based on what the rest of the Scriptures says about Adam, about the Flood, and about death and suffering. Walton is not unaware of these considerations, of course. On Adam and Eve he writes: ‘Whatever evolutionary processes led to the development of animal life, primates and even prehuman hominids, my theological convictions lead me to posit substantive discontinuity between that process and the creation of the historical Adam and Eve’ (p.139). Likewise, he holds that ‘the disorder and brokenness of this world are the result of human sin and the Fall’ (p.148).</p>
<p>One of Walton’s principal observations is that Genesis 1 depicts the cosmos as a <em>temple</em>. This is largely based on the use of the word ‘rest’ for the seventh day, and the obvious fact (to people in that culture) that gods rest in <em>temples</em>. ‘Deity rests in a temple, and only in a temple’ (p.72). So, to say that God <em>rested</em> on the seventh day is to say that God took up residence in his <em>temple</em>. This moves the emphasis from what is <em>not</em> happening (‘rest’ as inactivity) to what <em>is</em> happening. ‘Rest’ means that ‘stability has been achieved’ and that ‘the normal operations of the cosmos can be undertaken’ (p.73). This is helpful for our understanding of the Sabbath, which becomes not so much a time in which we simply don’t do certain things, as a time in which we actively ‘recognize that [God] is at the controls, not us’ (p.147).</p>
<p>Walton seeks to read Genesis 1 as people in the ancient Near East would have read it. In reading an ancient text such as Genesis, ‘we must translate the culture as well as the language if we hope to understand the text fully’ (p.9). We need to consider the author’s purpose in writing Genesis: ‘God has communicated through human authors and through their intentions’ (p.106). So we should be cautious about imposing our modern scientific questions onto the text. It is striking that Genesis 1, or Scripture in general, makes no attempt to correct people’s wrong beliefs about the <em>material</em> properties of the cosmos. Whether we are considering the sky as a ‘firmament’ (a <a href="https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/seely-firmament-wtj.pdf">solid dome with water above it</a>), or whether we are considering how we think and feel with our hearts and our kidneys, God consistently ‘adopted the language of the culture to communicate in terms they understood’ (p.18).</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Through the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture. No passage offers a scientific perspective that was not common to the Old World science of antiquity (p.19).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So, if we are not to impose our modern scientific questions onto the text, does that mean Genesis 1 is just a theological treatise? Interestingly, Walton would say that it isn’t. He is (mildly) critical of the ‘framework hypothesis’ way of reading Genesis, and of any approach that see Genesis 1 as being ‘only theological,’ having ‘a literary shape that makes it poetic’ so that it ‘should not be taken as any sort of scientific record’ (p.103). Those approaches, in his view, do not go far enough, and he is sceptical that the Israelites would have ‘thought of this text in only literary/theological terms’ (p.112). I share his concerns on that point. Whether they held their beliefs about the creation week in quite the same way as they held their beliefs about the everyday world of their direct experience is a question I’m currently pondering. But to suppose, for example, that they could say, ‘For in six days the L<span style="font-variant:small-caps">ord</span> made [everything],’ (Ex. 20:11) and to think of that as being a purely theological statement, with no hint about what actually happened in space and time, seems a bit tenuous.</p>
<p>So, if Genesis 1 is not concerned with modern scientific questions, but if it is still describing something that actually happened, then what is the conclusion? Remarkably, Walton is led to the conclusion that the world was actually created in six ordinary 24-hour days. I say ‘remarkably’, because Walton is very much open to the standard evolutionary understanding of the history of life. In other words, Walton is a six-day creationist who also believes (or is at least open to the belief) that the cosmos is billions of years old, and that life arose by evolutionary processes over millions of years.</p>
<p>How does he manage to square that circle?</p>
<p>He does so by suggesting that the ancient readers would have read Genesis 1 as an account of <em>functional</em> origins, not as an account of <em>material</em> origins. As such, there is no conflict between our science and the Bible: evolution is about <em>material</em> origins, and the Bible is about <em>functional</em> origins. ‘As an account of functional origins, [Genesis 1] offers no clear information about material origins’ (p.163).</p>
<p>Walton suggests that ‘our culture views existence, and therefore meaning, in material terms’ (p.24), but that ‘people in the ancient world believed that something existed not by virtue of its material properties, <em>but by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system</em>’ (p.26, emphasis in original). What then would it mean to <em>create</em> something? ‘In a functional ontology, to bring something into existence would require giving it a function or a role in an ordered system, rather than giving it material properties’ (p.26). So he can describe the cosmos as having had a ‘material phase’: a period in which it may have contained ‘dinosaurs and fossil “homo” specimens’ but in which it was ‘prefunctional’ (p.169). The ‘seven days of creation’ are then seen as ‘literal twenty-four-hour days associated with the inauguration of the cosmic temple — its actual creation, accomplished by proclaiming its functions, installing its functionaries, and, most importantly, becoming the place of God’s residence’ (p.93). A helpful parallel for this is the creation of the temple in Jerusalem. It had a material phase, during which the building was erected, but it only became the temple — it was only <em>created</em> — when it was inaugurated, and when the various material components were given their function.</p>
<p>What are we to make of this?</p>
<p>Walton is clearly right to point to a functional <em>emphasis</em> in Genesis 1. There is clearly a greater interest in the roles that various created things play than in what they are made of. He also makes a plausible case that Genesis 1 assumes that there was some kind of (functionless) material already present before the start of the seven days. Writing about verse 2, he notes that ‘here at the beginning of the creation process, there is already material in existence — the waters of the deep’ (p.49).</p>
<p>But beyond that, I find the sharp distinction between material origins and functional original deeply problematic, for biblical, conceptual and practical reasons.</p>
<p>First, there are <em>biblical</em> problems. Genesis 1 doesn’t simply say, ‘Let X do Y’ (giving a function to something that already exists materially). Rather, it says, ‘Let there be X, and let X do Y.’ I can’t see what ‘Let there be X’ means in purely functional terms. It seems to be saying that something wasn’t there at all (either materially or functionally), then God spoke, and then it came into being.</p>
<p>Second, there are <em>conceptual</em> problems. Is it possible to think about the cosmos being made into an ‘ordered system’ without its material properties being affected? And can a world full of living creatures (or ‘precreatures’!) really be described as having no function at all? Walton gives examples of computer software, colleges and curricula, in which the existence of the thing is not purely material. But can that same distinction be applied universally? And is non-material existence the same as functional existence? Is the non-material existence of computer software the same a it having a role in an ordered system? If the software is never used, does it have a functional existence? If the curriculum is never followed, does it have a functional existence?</p>
<p>Third, there are <em>practical</em> problems. These become evident when you ask ‘the question of what actually happens in the seven days’ (p.97). Walton answers as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The main elements lacking in the “before” picture are … humanity in God’s image and God’s presence in his cosmic temple. Without these two ingredients the cosmos would be considered nonfunctional and therefore nonexistent. The material phase nonetheless could have been under development for long eras and could in that case correspond with the descriptions of the prehistoric ages as science has uncovered them for us. There would be no reason to think that the sun had not been shining, plants had not been growing, or animals had not been present. These were like the rehearsals leading up to a performance of a play. The rehearsals are preparatory and necessary, but they are not the play. They find their meaning only when the audience is present. It is then that the play exists, and it is for them that the play exists (p.97f).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But are there not seven days in the creation week? What happened during the first five? In what sense did anything exist (functionally) at the end of the fifth day, if there were no people present at that stage?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[F]unctionality cannot exist without people in the picture. In Genesis people are not put in place until day six, but functionality is established with their needs and situation in mind (p.51).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So God <em>established</em> the functionality on days 1-5, but the functionality didn’t <em>exist</em> until day 6? Perhaps the idea is that God announced on each day what the functions of the different parts of his creation would be, come the sixth day? But that doesn’t fit with the text of Genesis 1, which repeatedly says, ‘and it was so’, and, ‘it was good’, which Walton proposes refers to ‘functioning properly’ (p.51). So it must be the case that the cosmos was able to function, albeit imperfectly and partially, <em>before</em> people were created on the sixth day.</p>
<p>But if that is the case, then what actually happened on the first five days? Walton doesn’t read the text as saying that nothing actually happened. Something didn’t have a function, then it was given a function, then it functioned according to its newly-assigned function. But what does that mean in practice? Were the sea creatures assigned the function of filling the waters of the seas <em>after</em> they had filled the waters of the seas? Were the sun and moon assigned the function of giving light on the earth when they had already been doing precisely that for millions of years?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What would the observer have seen in these seven days of Genesis 1? At one level this could simply be dismissed as the wrong question. It continues to focus on the eyewitness account of material acts (p.99).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But if, in asking this question, we fail completely to come up with any plausible scenario for what actually happened, then maybe we need to question whether this distinction between material and functional origins is the right approach in the first place.</p>
<p>So where does that leave us? Walton hasn’t argued against the young-earth creation position as such. It is perfectly coherent to think that God could have chosen to create things (materially <em>and</em> functionally) in seven days so that it would be clear that the cosmos is a temple, and hence that ‘this world is a place for God’s presence’ (p.85).</p>
<p>But that still leaves us with the problem of the firmament. ‘We cannot think that we can interpret the word “expanse/firmament” as simply the sky or the atmosphere if that is not what the author meant by it when he used it and not what the audience would have understood by the word’ (p.57). Walton notes that if Genesis 1 is an account of material origins, and if there is actually no solid firmament, then ‘we then find ourselves with the problem of trying to explain the material creation of something that does not exist’ (p.94). But nor is it easy to explain the <em>functional</em> creation of something that has no material existence, given that ‘something must have physical properties before it can be given its function’ (p.27).</p>
<p>Perhaps it’s worth reflecting on why ancient people made any attempt at all to describe things that were so far from their everyday experience. If no one had seen the foundations of the earth, then why speak of its pillars? If no one had touched the sky, then why describe it as a solid dome? If no one had been beyond the sky, then why speak of the waters which were above it? If no one had seen someone’s kidneys having emotions, or their heart thinking, then why speak as though that were the case? And if no one watched the earth or the sun or the first animals come into existence, then why speak of how it happened at all?</p>
<p>Those beliefs had a function in their lives. They needed to think and speak about who they were, where they had come from, and the world in which they lived. It’s impossible to do that without using language. And they did so in appropriate ways. Appropriate for what? Not for modern science: they were not going to apply for a research grant to find out what the earth’s pillars were made of! But, for pretty much any other purpose, it is entirely appropriate to describe the earth as resting on pillars, or the sky as being a solid dome. And it is entirely appropriate to speak of God making the ‘firmament’, if you want to reflect on God as being in control of the weather system. As Walton says, ‘The cosmic waters posed a continual threat, and the “firmament” had been created as a means of establishing cosmic order’ (p.57).</p>
<p>Or, to put it simply, following Walton, perhaps we should try again to hear Genesis as the original hearers would have heard it? Whatever effect the text would have had on them — however it would have shaped their beliefs and their lives — we should allow the text to have those same effects on our lives. And if all of <em>those</em> effects lead us in the ways of goodness and beauty and truth, then, in that sense, Genesis 1 provides an entirely good and beautiful and <em>true</em> account of the origins of the heavens and the earth.</p>
Fri, 15 Aug 2014 15:03:46 +0100http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/08/15/the-lost-world-of-genesis-one/
http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/08/15/the-lost-world-of-genesis-one/Weapons cause wars: Alan Storkey on the First World War<p><img alt="Alan Storkey" title="Alan Storkey" src="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/assets/alan-storkey.png" class="alignright" align="right" />I first heard <a href="http://www.alanstorkey.com/">Alan</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Storkey">Storkey</a> give a talk about the arms trade in 2010, at a <a href="http://wysocs.org.uk/">WYSOCS</a> event, and it had a deep effect on me. He made me realise something that should have been obvious: that sales of weapons are not only an extremely good way of making money, but also an extremely good way of building up tension between nations, and ultimately of causing wars. ‘<a href="http://www.whyworldwar1.com/weapons-cause-wars">Weapons cause wars</a>,’ as he puts it.</p>
<p>Alan spoke recently at the <a href="http://www.licc.org.uk/">London Institute for Contemporary Christianity (LICC)</a> on the causes of the First World War. The <a href="http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/47889586">video</a> is embedded below, and there is a related website: <a href="http://www.whyworldwar1.com/">Why World War One? The long Failure of Western Arms</a>. His basic point is that an arms race, stimulated by various arms manufacturers, was largely responsible for the outbreak of war. This is clearly expressed in the following quote by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Grey,_1st_Viscount_Grey_of_Fallodon">Sir Edward Grey</a>, who was British Foreign Secretary from 1905 to 1916 (18 minutes into the video):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The enormous growth of armaments in Europe, the sense of insecurity and fear caused by them — it was these that made war inevitable. This, it seems to me, is the truest reading of history, and the lesson that the present should be learning from the past in the interests of future peace, the warning to be handed on to those who come after us.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The tragedy of the Second World War is that they didn’t learn that lesson. And the tragedy of today is that we still haven’t learned that lesson. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/world/middleeast/isis-forces-in-iraq.html">Apparently</a>, in Iraq, ISIS is ‘fighting with hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. military equipment seized from the Iraqi Army who abandoned it’ (also see <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-military-equipment-breakdown-2014-7?op=1">here</a>).</p>
<p>‘Those who take the sword will perish by the sword,’ as Jesus said.</p>
<p>Does this bother you? I hope it does. If so, can I urge you to sign Alan’s <a href="http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/68002">petition calling for world multilateral disarmament</a>?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Arms still cause wars and the time has come to close down the biggest failed experiment in modern history — the idea that arms make us safe. It is disarming that makes us safe and we should start it soon.</p>
<footer><a href="http://www.whyworldwar1.com/">Alan Storkey</a></footer>
</blockquote>
<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9">
<iframe class="embed-responsive-item" src="http://www.ustream.tv/embed/recorded/47889586?v=3&amp;wmode=direct" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</div>
Fri, 08 Aug 2014 12:10:43 +0100http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/08/08/weapons-cause-wars-alan-storkey-on-the-first-world-war/
http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/08/08/weapons-cause-wars-alan-storkey-on-the-first-world-war/Astronomy through a Christian telescope<p>There’s a post of mine on the <a href="http://faithinscholarship.org.uk/">Faith in Scholarship blog</a> this morning. It begins as follows…</p>
<blockquote>
<p>One of the motivations for <em>Faith in Scholarship</em> is the conviction that Christian faith makes a difference to all areas of life. It’s not just the ‘religious’ areas of our lives that are affected, but, in the famous words of Abraham Kuyper, ‘There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over <em>all</em>, does not cry, Mine!’</p>
<p>But what does that mean for my own discipline: astronomy?</p>
<p>I’d like to attempt to answer that question by putting astronomy under the microscope (or the telescope!), looking at it from various angles. I’m drawing on a set of fifteen different ways of thinking about the whole of reality, known as ‘aspects’ or ‘modalities’, which were developed by the 20th-century Christian philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd (see <a href="http://www.dooy.salford.ac.uk/aspects.html">Andrew Basden’s <em>Dooyeweerd</em> Pages</a> for an excellent introduction). I hope this approach might be helpful to you in thinking about your own disciplines.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://faithinscholarship.org.uk/astronomy-christian-telescope/">Read more…</a></p>
Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:08:53 +0100http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/08/08/astronomy-through-a-christian-telescope/
http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/08/08/astronomy-through-a-christian-telescope/Debating Darwin<p><a href="http://www.authenticmedia.co.uk/search/product/debating-darwin-graeme-finlay-stephen-lloyd-stephen-pattemore/9781842276198.jhtml"><img alt="Debating Darwin" title="Debating Darwin" src="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/assets/debating-darwin.jpg" class="alignright" align="right" /><em>Debating Darwin</em> (Paternoster, 2009)</a> is a multi-author book, seeking to debate Darwinism first on theological grounds, and then on scientific grounds. Each half of the book has four chapters: two setting out the case for and against, and two responses. It has some strong points, but the choice of two very different authors to oppose Darwinism, along with the theological approach of the pro-Darwinism authors, combine to make the book into something that is likely to weaken the faith of the average evangelical Christian. This is probably not what the authors (or the strikingly invisible editor) intended.</p>
<p>First the good parts. Stephen Lloyd is the theological opponent to Darwinism, and his chapters are extremely cogent and very refreshing. (I know Stephen personally, but I would hold the same opinion even if I did not.) A strong case could be made against Darwinism (or Neo-Darwinism) based on what the Bible says in various different places. But Lloyd’s approach is much more powerful, as he focuses on the big storyline of the Bible. His claim is that “Accommodating Neo-Darwinism” to Christianity “leaves the biblical story, centred on the resurrection, incoherent”, and he expands on that by examining the doctrines of Adam, the global flood, and the goodness of the original creation (“no agony before Adam”). This is essentially the same case that Lloyd made in a debate I organised in Brighton in 2010 (see <a href="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2010/06/22/creation-or-evolution-do-we-have-to-choose/">my write-up of the debate</a> and listen to it on <a href="http://www.bethinking.org/does-evolution-disprove-creation/creation-or-evolution-do-we-have-to-choose">bethinking.org</a>), and also in <a href="http://www.biblicalcreationministries.org.uk/b/index.php/2010/01/09/creation-and-the-story-line-of-the-bible">a talk from 2009</a>.</p>
<p>The first pro-Darwinism chapter, by Graeme Finlay and Stephen Pattermore, is largely about issues of literary genre, and also attempts to drive a wedge between physical death and spiritual death. As with <a href="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/07/15/creation-or-evolution-do-we-have-to-keep-getting-nowhere/">Denis Alexander’s book</a>, I didn’t find this convincing. Their second chapter, in response to Lloyd, essentially amounts to an all-out attack on the creation-fall-redemption-restoration framework for understanding the big storyline of the Bible. They portray this storyline as being cyclic, rather than linear, making the (quite unfair) assumption that the restoration envisaged is simply a return to the original state of things. In its place, they put forward a purely evolutionary and progressive understanding of the biblical narrative. This is unfortunate, as it puts them at odds with much mainstream evangelicalism. It is also revealing, as they seem to concede Lloyd’s main point: that the Neo-Darwinian narrative cannot be reconciled with the narrative of creation-fall-redemption-restoration.</p>
<p>The scientific opponent to Darwinism, David Swift, couldn’t be more different to Lloyd in his views. Unlike Lloyd, Swift has no theological objection to evolution, and is quite comfortable in principle with the idea of common descent (even if he is not sure it is true). His main objection to Neo-Darwinism is that he doesn’t think the mechanism is capable of producing new genes, and he puts forward a strong case to that effect. His view seems to be that God somehow injected new genetic information at various points during the course of earth history, leading to the sudden introduction of new forms of living creature (birds, mammals, etc).</p>
<p>The scientific pro-Darwinism chapter, by Graeme Finlay, sets out a strong case for common ancestry, based on shared “mistakes” in the genome (ERVs, jumping genes, etc). The discussion is quite technical, particularly for a book aimed at “ordinary” readers. This case isn’t answered particularly strongly, as Swift doesn’t really have any objections to common ancestry, in principle. So the reader is left with the impression that common ancestry is pretty well established by the genetic evidence.</p>
<p>What is the combined effect of all of these chapters? First, your average evangelical would get the impression that their understanding of the biblical storyline, as creation-fall-redemption-restoration, conflicts with the storyline of (Neo-)Darwinism, with its account of the common ancestry of people and all other living things. So either Christianity (thus construed) is true, or common ancestry is true. That is the impression given by the first half of the book. The impression given by the second half of the book is that common ancestry is (probably) true. Put these together, and the conclusion is obvious: scientific evidence suggests that the Christian faith, as most evangelicals understand it, is false.</p>
<p>I can’t imagine that any of the authors intended the book to give this impression. It seems to be a consequence of poor editorial judgment. The book would have been much better if it had a stronger editor. As it stands, no editor is even named. Whoever it is didn’t seem to understand that there are many different kinds of objection to Darwinism, and that you can’t just put two very different opponents to Darwinism together and expect the book to have a coherent storyline. There is no introduction to the book, explaining the parameters of the debate, and no attempt to bring things together at the end. In fact, the editorial process seems to have been calculated to minimise the actual engagement between the authors. In an ordinary debate, each speaker would have at least three opportunities to speak, and each speech would follow on from the previous one, so that the second speaker would modify their opening speech based on the opening speech of the first speaker, and so on. But in this book, the opening chapters were submitted independently, and then the responding chapters were submitted independently, with no opportunity for any other engagement. There is no hint that the opposing speakers have ever met each other, or knew anything about each other prior to writing their chapters, so they end up talking past each other much of the time.</p>
<p>However, there are limitations to the debate format, even in the best of circumstances. There is a strong temptation for the contributors to try to “win” the debate, and to err on the side of overstating their case. Debates also perpetuate the idea that there are two sides to the issue, with the correct response being to simply choose one side or the other. I’m not sure that is the way forward: is it not worth exploring novel approaches to the issue, rather than regurgitating the same old polarised views again and again?</p>
<p>A couple of final comments in response to the impression given by the book. First, I’m quite confident that many or most evangelical proponents of theistic evolution, or evolutionary creationism, do indeed embrace at least some version of the creation-fall-redemption-restoration framework for understanding the biblical narrative. So it would not be fair to assume that all proponents of Darwinism see things in the same way that Finlay and Pattermore do. Second, the argument for common ancestry based on shared mistakes in the genome falls down as soon as those “mistakes” are shown to have a function. Finlay shoots himself in the foot on this point in the end of his chapter, when he draws attention to the function of several ERVs or jumping genes, and Swift briefly makes this same point. I don’t consider myself qualified to adjudicate on this issue, but <a href="https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/the-natural-history-of-retroviruses/">it has been suggested</a> that the functional ERVs in our DNA might have been part of God’s original created design, rather than relics of our evolutionary past.</p>
Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:11:40 +0100http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/07/28/debating-darwin/
http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/07/28/debating-darwin/On good disagreement and the future of the Church of England<blockquote>
<p>Live in harmony with one another. … If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone (Romans 12:16,18).</p>
<p>Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3).</p>
<p>[M]ake my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind (Philippians 2:2).</p>
<p>Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God (2 Corinthians 6:14-16, all quotations from the NIV).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>“Good disagreement” is becoming one of Archbishop Justin Welby’s catchphrases. And it’s a wonderful idea. The Church is full of bad disagreement. My <a href="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/07/15/creation-or-evolution-do-we-have-to-keep-getting-nowhere/">previous blog post</a> was about creation and evolution, and that is certainly an example. We simply do not make the effort to understand each other, let alone to love one another. Surely the first step we need to take on the road towards full agreement is to turn our bad disagreements into good disagreements.</p>
<p>Welby was interviewed on <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04b62gr/the-andrew-marr-show-13072014">The Andrew Marr Show on Sunday (13 July 2014)</a>, and the topic of “good disagreement” came up twice.</p>
<p>First (just after 30:30), speaking about the prospect of a schism in the Anglican Communion, Welby commented:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As Christians we believe that we are part of one family, we’re joined inextricably not by our own choice but by the choice of God, by our common faith in Christ. Schism is awful. If it happens, it happens. But our calling is to love one another and to find ways of <strong>good disagreement</strong> in a world that is completely incapable of good disagreement.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is surely the way forward. We have so much in common as Christians, and once we learn to recognise one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, then it will be much easier to work through our disagreements about lesser issues. Hopefully this will be the case with the issue of women bishops too. <a href="http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/5369/women-bishops-archbishop-addresses-synod">Speaking at the General Synod debate earlier this week, Welby said</a>,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Today we can start on a challenging and adventur[ou]s journey to embrace a radical new way of being the church: <strong>good and loving disagreement</strong> amidst the seeking of truth in all our fallibility; a potential gift to a world driven by overconfident certainties into bitter and divisive conflict. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>But the idea of “good disagreement” has a certain ambiguity to it.</p>
<p>Later in the interview with Andrew Marr (just after 33:45), Welby described some conversations he had had with Muslim leader Ibrahim Mogra:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>there was absolutely no sense of conflict there — we disagreed. [AM: it was a proper conversation.] It was a proper, <strong>good disagreement</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The ambiguity is this: on the one hand, there is “good disagreement” between people who share the same fundamental convictions, but on the other hand, there is “good disagreement” between people who do not share the same fundamental convictions. So <em>which kind of good disagreement are we aiming for in the Church?</em></p>
<p>Within in the Church, if we are to be recognizably the “temple of God”, and recognizably a body of believers, rather than a mixed body of believers and unbelievers, then we must aim not for “good disagreement” about our fundamental convictions, but for complete <em>unity</em> on those matters. We must aim to be “like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind”, and we must aim for nothing less. Of course, there will be differences, but those will be differences within the context of agreement about the essential elements of our faith.</p>
<p>But what if our “bad disagreements”, even when they have become “good disagreements”, turn out to be disagreements about the core aspects of our beliefs? What should we do then as a Church?</p>
<p>In those cases, “good disagreement” must become the kind of “good disagreement” that Justin Welby was able to have with Ibrahim Mogra. In our dealings with Muslims, we recognize — publicly — that we have fundamentally different understandings of God, Jesus and the world. We don’t pretend that we are basically the same — though, of course, we will often work together on issues of common concern. But we follow Paul’s exhortation to “live at peace with everyone”, as far as it is possible to do so.</p>
<p>And that must be the way forward for us as a Church, if our disagreements, once we have explored them carefully, prove to be fundamental differences in how we understand God, Jesus and the world. We must — for the sake of the Church and for the sake of the world — try to go our separate ways — to live at peace with each other, but not to pretend, either to ourselves or to the world around, that we are basically the same. The Church shouldn’t seek to model “good disagreement” in the sense of getting along in peace even though we disagree as much as it is humanly possible to disagree! We should model <em>that</em> kind of “good disagreement” in our dealings with those <em>outside</em> the Church. Inside the Church, we should be marked not by the quality of our disagreement, but by the quality of our agreement.</p>
<p>But is that even conceivable for the Church of England?</p>
<p>On the left we have England, and on the right we have the Church of England (not to scale).</p>
<p><img alt="England and the Church of England" title="England and the Church of England" src="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/assets/england-cofe-1.png" /></p>
<p>You will notice that England is divided in two. The colours are not significant (I won’t tell you which is which!), but it it supposed to represent Christians and non-Christians.</p>
<p>Now, where should we place the black circle?</p>
<p>Currently, I think the black circle is bang in the middle. What I mean is that, however you construe “Christian”, there are lots of people in the Church of England who would, under that definition, be non-Christians.</p>
<p>So, from one perspective, Jesus came to rescue us from the punishment our sins deserved by dying in our place on the cross. A Christian is someone who receives Jesus’ gift of eternal life, and a non-Christian is someone who doesn’t think they need Jesus to rescue them.</p>
<p>But, from another perspective, Jesus came to show us the kind of love that breaks down all the petty divisions that permeate human society, and to teach us to accept each other as we are. Jesus came to rescue us from our hatred and to affirm us in who we are. Christians are people who have embraced Jesus’ message of inclusivity, and non-Christians are people who think we need some kind of radical change before we are acceptable to God.</p>
<p>Both of those perspectives are represented within the Church of England. (I won’t pretend to know the relative proportions. Honestly, I have no idea about that. The popular impression is that people are either “pro-gay” and “pro-women” or “anti-gay” and “anti-women”. But there are <em>plenty</em> of people who are in favour of women bishops but hold to a traditional view on same-sex relationships, so the popular impression is extremely misleading.)</p>
<p>So, what are the options?</p>
<p>First, following from what I said above, we could aim for fundamental agreement within the Church as to what Jesus is all about. Then we would end up with one of the following:</p>
<p><img alt="England and the Church of England" title="England and the Church of England" src="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/assets/england-cofe-2.png" /></p>
<p>In one case (pick a colour), this would mean a fundamental agreement that Jesus came to rescue us from the punishment that our sins deserved. It would make the Church very unpopular with the establishment. It would mean that the “liberals” in the Church would (voluntarily or otherwise) all leave, <em>en masse</em>.</p>
<p>In the other case (pick a colour), it would mean a fundamental agreement that Jesus came to show us true inclusivity. It would make the Church very popular with the establishment. It would mean that the “traditionalists” in the Church would (voluntarily or otherwise) all leave, <em>en masse</em>.</p>
<p>I find it very hard to imagine either of these possibilities happening. I can’t see the central powers of the Church deliberately making it intolerable for either group to remain in the Church. First, there isn’t the level of agreement necessary among the bishops or within the General Synod to allow this to happen. And second, the central powers are acutely aware of practical, financial considerations, and it would be almost suicidal (unassisted!) to take any steps that would send lots of bums <em>off</em> pews. And no local church really wants to leave the Church of England, not least because they would have to leave their buildings! As long as each local church can carry on pretty much as it pleases, and is able to basically ignore what goes on elsewhere, they are likely to be happy to stay. But it’s not inconceivable that things could begin to tip in one direction or the other; indeed, I sincerely pray that they will — in the right direction!</p>
<p>Another option is for the Church to split in two:</p>
<p><img alt="England and the Church of England" title="England and the Church of England" src="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/assets/england-cofe-3.png" /></p>
<p>No, it’s not the face of a very colourful insect.</p>
<p>In this case, the two irreconcilable perspectives in the Church of England agree amicably to go their separate ways. This, I think, is what “good disagreement” about fundamental issues ought to look like in practice. No one is suggesting a merger between the Church of England and the Muslim Council of Britain. It is better that we remain as separate organisations, and seek to engage with each other and live peacefully side by side.</p>
<p>The trouble is that I can’t see it happening. The whole institutional structure of the Church of England assumes that it is one institution for the whole country. The country is divided into two provinces, and 43 dioceses, each of which has one diocesan bishop, and each diocese is divided up into parishes, with every square inch of the country falling into one parish.</p>
<p>If the Church of England split in two (which would make Scottish independence look like a piece of cake, with tea, at the vicarage), then there is no conceivable way that either church would have a convincing claim to be a church for the whole country.</p>
<p>The final option is for things to remain pretty much as they are:</p>
<p><img alt="England and the Church of England" title="England and the Church of England" src="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/assets/england-cofe-4.png" /></p>
<p>In this case, the Church of England as an institution would need to degenerate into a bland institutional husk, within which a diversity of fundamentally different perspectives are enabled to flourish.</p>
<p>Is this what “good disagreement” and “flourishing” will look like in practice?</p>
<p>I hope not. But I suspect it might be, though it does seem to be one of the features of <a href="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/06/08/anglicanism/">Anglicanism</a>, with its organic structure and its bishops, that this kind of breadth never feels even remotely comfortable.</p>
<p>Yes, let’s turn our “bad disagreements” into “good disagreements”. But let’s not allow the process to stop there.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Lord of the church, we long for our uniting,<br />
true to one calling, by one vision stirred;<br />
one cross proclaiming and one creed reciting,<br />
one in the truth of Jesus and his word.<br />
So lead us on; till toil and trouble ended,<br />
one church triumphant one new song shall sing,<br />
to praise his glory, risen and ascended,<br />
Christ over all, the everlasting King!</p>
<p><em>Timothy Dudley-Smith</em></p>
</blockquote>
Fri, 18 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0100http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/07/18/on-good-disagreement-and-the-future-of-the-church-of-england/
http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/07/18/on-good-disagreement-and-the-future-of-the-church-of-england/Creation or evolution: do we have to keep getting nowhere?<p>It is with some reluctance that I turn to the topic of creation and evolution. It’s something I’ve thought about a lot in years gone by, but I’ve tried to avoid it more recently. The whole debate is so polarised, and shows little sign of coming any nearer to a resolution, so I’ve allowed my interests to roam in different directions. But I’m preparing some talks on the early chapters of Genesis, so I feel I ought to make myself a bit more familiar with the way things currently stand.</p>
<p>In what follows, I’d like to focus on three exhibits, only one of which seems actually to be constructive in taking the church nearer to unity and maturity on the issue.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Creation-Evolution-Do-Have-Choose/dp/1854247468"><img alt="Creation or evolution: do we have to choose?" title="Creation or evolution: do we have to choose?" src="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/assets/creation-evolution-alexander.jpg" class="alignright" align="right" /></a>Exhibit A is Denis Alexander’s 2008 book, <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Creation-Evolution-Do-Have-Choose/dp/1854247468"><em>Creation or evolution: do we have to choose?</em></a>. I read this not too long after it came out. It’s well written and covers a lot of ground. The basic thrust of the book is that it is possible to be an evangelical Christian, believing the Bible to be the word of God, and still to accept the findings of modern science when it comes to the evolution of life, particularly human life (this position is known as <em>theistic evolution</em> or <em>evolutionary creationism</em>). A large chunk of the book is devoted to the scientific evidence, and the book provides a fascinating primer in the relatively young field of genomics: the study of DNA and the genome. The rest of the book is an attempt to reconcile biblical Christianity with the evolutionary narrative.</p>
<p>Alexander gives it a good shot, but I have to say that his synthesis is far from persuasive. It hinges largely on a sharp distinction being drawn between physical death and spiritual death, so that billions of years of <em>physical</em> death can give rise to life as we know it, after which God sends <em>spiritual</em> death into his very good creation as a punishment for human sin. The trouble is that the Bible simply doesn’t make this distinction, and it leaves us puzzling over why Jesus’ <em>physical</em> death should have anything to do with the problem of sin. The book also makes it clear that it is far from easy to reconcile the biblical account of Adam and Eve with the prevailing secular account of human origins.</p>
<p>However, my main problem with the book, at least in the context of this particular post, is its unwillingness to engage in constructive discussion on the issue. Where does Alexander direct me to find a good defence of the opposite point of view? Which creationist works does Alexander engage with? You will search in vain for any attempt to answer those questions — except for two brief mentions of Henry Morris. Not a single living creationist is named in the book. Alexander would clearly not deign to condescend to their level. ‘Christians who make it their mission to attack evolution, in the mistaken assumption that it is anti-God, are embarrassing and bring the gospel into disrepute’ (p. 352). (But, lo, <a href="http://www.lionhudson.com/display.asp?K=9780857215789">is that a revised and enlarged second edition I see coming out in September</a>? Perhaps there is room to be optimistic?)</p>
<p><a href="http://www.thinkivp.com/9781844744060"><img alt="Should Christians embrace evolution?" title="Should Christians embrace evolution?" src="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/assets/nevin-evolution.jpg" class="alignright" align="right" /></a>So we move swiftly to Exhibit B, the 2009 book, <a href="http://www.thinkivp.com/9781844744060"><em>Should Christians embrace evolution?</em></a>, edited by Norman Nevin. I bought this book not long after it came out, but it suffered the fate of most of my books, and lingered on the bookshelf (well, various successive bookshelves) until last week. The book is a multi-author response to the biblical and scientific issues dealt with by Alexander. Highlights are an excellent chapter by Michael Reeves on the importance of believing in a historical Adam who fathered the whole human race (also available <a href="http://www.reformation21.org/articles/adam-and-eve.php">here</a>), a wide-ranging (if slightly unstructured) chapter on the theological problems with the theistic evolution position by David Anderson (who has published other responses to Alexander’s book, both shorter and longer, available <a href="http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/writings/creation-or-evolution-dr-denis-alexander/index.php/intro">here</a>), and an illuminating chapter on genomics by Geoff Barnard (you can watch him speaking on the topic <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31XNpXB0_ZY">here</a>).</p>
<p>But, apart from a few highlights, to be honest, I wish the book had lingered on the shelf for longer. It comes across as a hastily cobbled together response to Alexander’s book. The chapters are mainly either off topic, or badly written, or both. But this is beside the point: the book doesn’t give the impression that it was actually intended to be read at all. Rather, its mere existence is the point. Here is a book, published by respected evangelical publisher IVP, with multiple authors, some of whom you will have heard of, with four pages of glowing commendations, and with a foreword by none other than Wayne Grudem, one of the biggest names in Bible-centred evangelicalism. It’s even got a <a href="http://shouldchristiansembraceevolution.com/">shiny website</a>. Clearly, without even needing to read a word, you should be able to glean that many prominent evangelicals say a big resounding ‘No!’ to Denis Alexander and his ilk.</p>
<p>Genesis 4 takes us from bad to worse, as Cain murders his brother and as Lamech boasts of his acts of vengeance. But there is a glimmer of hope in the final verse, as ‘At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord’ (ESV). Is there a glimmer of hope in this debate?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bryantriangle.com/news/young-earth-creationist-and-theistic-evolutionist-discuss-beliefs/"><img alt="Darrel Falk and Todd Wood" title="Darrel Falk and Todd Wood" src="http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/assets/falk-wood.jpg" /></a></p>
<p>I end this post with Exhibit C. This is an ongoing series of discussions between prominent evolutionary creationist <a href="http://biologos.org/about/team/darrel-falk">Darrel Falk</a> and prominent young-age creationist <a href="http://toddcwood.blogspot.co.uk/">Todd Wood</a>. Most of these conversations, facilitated by the <a href="http://www.colossianforum.org/">Colossian Forum</a>, have been taken taking place in private. But they <a href="http://www.bryantriangle.com/news/young-earth-creationist-and-theistic-evolutionist-discuss-beliefs/">went public</a> a few months ago, in an event that you can listen to <a href="http://www.bryan.edu/19399.html">here</a> (hat tip: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/biblicalcreationministries/posts/1391973507736811">Biblical Creation Ministries</a>). It really is an excellent example of people of widely different perspectives coming together as brothers in Christ and seeking to understand each other.</p>
<p>Creation or evolution: do we have to keep getting nowhere? In keeping with the book titles mentioned above, my question also anticipates a negative answer. No, we don’t have to keep getting nowhere. There is hope, and I am optimistic, that one day, before too long, it will not be <em>so</em> much a ‘debate’ about creation and evolution, with people taking ‘sides’, but a serious attempt by brothers and sisters in Christ to grapple together with these big questions, ‘until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ’ (Ephesians 4:13, ESV).</p>
Tue, 15 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0100http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/07/15/creation-or-evolution-do-we-have-to-keep-getting-nowhere/
http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2014/07/15/creation-or-evolution-do-we-have-to-keep-getting-nowhere/